15 Comments

I would like to comment on the word homophobia while waiting for this audio to download.

When at the time of Esther, Vashti the queen did not appear as ordered by the king through his chamberlains, the offense was considered to be not only against the king and the princes, but against everybody. (Esther 1:16-18)

Nobody called Memucan queenaphobic, or suggested he had something called wifeaphobia, not to my knowledge anyway.

Now we have judges to uphold the constituion in matters of law and judgment and they are to be impartial.

It seems to me that in order for a judge to be impartial, he needs to consider everybody.

California has an openly homosexual judge who ruled against proposition 8 which was to protect the people from the corruption which has sought to destroy the sanctity of the institution of marriage. God ordained one man, one woman marriage in the beginning.

I’ve heard of an alchoholic judge who handed out many DUI sentences. I suppose he was still impartial, still considering the law and the will of the people.

It’s been argued that there is no evidence that children fare better in a home with a father and mother, (a male and female) than they do in a homosexual home.

Daniel fared well in the lion’s den, but that is not to say that one should seek to spend the night in a den of hungry lions. It seems to me that shelter from the night would be better sought in the home of a believer, or a motel.

I think there were reasons Lot pursuaded the two
witnesses (angels) the Lord sent to see if things were so, not to spend the night in the streets of that city and took them in, when they saw him in the city’s gate.

Doing justice and judgment is what I suppose Lot was doing. (see Genesis 18:19)

One aspect of the audio clip regarding the court proceedings on gay marriage was surprising. While I do not doubt Judge Walker’s actions were biased, I find it a bizarre claim that cameras in the courtroom could be significant factor regarding the ability to present witnesses. To illustrate I have a bit of imaginary dialogue to consider:

Attorney: The judge may allow cameras in the court room.

Witness: That is a deal breaker. I really don’t believe marriage is worth it.

Attorney: What’s the big deal? There is national coverage of this trial anyway.

Witness: I am an expert but I had no clue there was national coverage. Is this marriage thing really important?

Attorney: We could subpoena you.

Witness: I dare you. I double dare you. I triple dare you. Just think how I might testify if you subpoena me.

Attorney: Ok. I won’t subpoena you. The idea of someone actually watching us us on camera while you testify that marriage is between one man and one woman is just too much. We could not possibly hold up under that type of scrutiny. I give up. We just have to face the fact we are too timid to speak up for what is right when there is a camera.

It point of fact, there were witnesses who were intimidated. Remember what happened to some people who simply donated to support Prop 8! You have to remember that not everyone who is going to testify is a “fighter.” They may simply be experts in their field, and they’re not prepared to be harassed or have their privacy invaded in order to testify.

Dr. Brown let me concede it is the easiest thing in the world to arm chair quarterback after something is over. Even more so, without knowing all the facts and listening to the headlines. Giving the benefit of the doubt one might say that if they were publically identified from a camera they run the risk public exposure and hence harrassment from having their privacy invaded. But I am not willing to let people off the hook so easily. The camera exposed the other party’s witnesses as well to the public and thus, becomes a double edged sword cutting both ways. One cannot therefore, arugue that cameras are inherently biased in favor of one side or another. But let me pose another question to your main point – not everyone is a “fighter”. That may be, but the follow up is – Why
could “fighters” not be found? Everyone knew Prop 8 was a battle. This is a major lawsuit and everyone knew the litigation was going to be contentious. So while my perspective is extremely limited I remain skeptical. Good lawyers know their witnesses and prepare them accordingly. Shame on the lawyers if they did not take the political climate into consideration. But also consider that Plaintiff’s expert witnesses are retained for the express purpose of rebutting very dedicated, well educated, highly motivated gay marriage proponents. Now add to that, the fact the outcome of this litigation could affect millions of people and by implication, direct the course billions of dollars. It is difficult for me to imagine either lawyers or witnesses were not fully aware of the grvity of this litigation and the pressures from all sides before signing up. But short of that, it doesn’t add up. And we may differ of our expectations of witnesses. You may be taking a much more sympathetic role in the face of the threat of intimidation or harrassment. I, on the other hand, am asking the question, how could you not know you were expected to be a fighter when you signed up?

I haven’t studied English except for what little I had of it in the public school system. It’s the only language I speak (except for tongues, which I don’t know the meaning of when I hear it) fluently.

I’ve been finding that when there is confussion, when some doctrine seems one sided, or not completely sound or whole, that I should go to an English dictionary, as well as the Bible.

Have you ever noticed how words are used in many different ways? That’s why we find them numbered in an English dictionary.

Now if I was speaking or writing and using a word
according to the #2 use of the word and one listening (but not understanding) to what I am saying or writing is “hearing” a word I used according to another use #1 for example, then that is one reason why they are not understanding what I may be saying.

There may be other reasons, but I’ve found that using a good dictionary is often a good place to start.

We might talk about the word “soul”. Is it immortal? If we look at all the ways the word “soul” is used in English we might say the answer to that is “yes” and “no” because it can mean different things.

We might find more than one way in which the word “soul” is used in the Bible.

What we should want to know is which way the writer was using it.

I suppose the same applies to other languages.

I bring this up because I have so often seen confussion and arguments over how a word is used and what people think about it as to the meaning of it.

“Denomination” can be used to describe a sect, even a schism, but it can also be used to refer to a religious group without reference as to whether or not it is a schism or not.

Consider as an example of this John the Baptist and his disciples, (one religious group) and Jesus and his disciples which were another religious group.

Isn’t that a good example from the Bible as to what denominations should be like?

Is a five dollar bill something to abhor because it’s not esteemed as valuable as a ten dollar bill?

Is there anything wrong with a five dollar bill just because it isn’t counted as being worth as much as a ten dollar bill?

It seems to me that the five dollar bill is supposed to be worth what a five dollar bill is. It’s not supposed to be worth what a ten dollar bill is, yet Jesus died for the ungodly counting them as more valuabe than his own life.

I’ve often found it good to use a good dictionary.
I’ve often found the importance in finding the right use of a word. There are often many to choose from.

Actually, calling certain witnesses was only a small part of the strategy, since the verdict was a foregone conclusion before the case started, and the key thing in the case was getting information entered into the record, especially through cross examination. All that went according to plan.

There are also “fighters” whose credibility could quickly be dismissed because of a stray quote here or there, so the calling of witnesses is quite strategic.

In any case, things are going as expected, according to plan, and the insider I spoke with felt fine about the material that our side was able to get included in the record. Please do read the linked article here for further perspective.

Here is my short and easy approach on “homophobia”.
Homophobia is presumably irrational fear of homosexuals (I think adding that I don’t use word “gay” is useful as well. If you read “Homosexual Agenda” you know why. “Gay” was a word homosexuals introduced to mean their practice, and since I am in to agreement over their behavior or vocabulary, I see no reason using their dictionary).

So, the very category of homosexual behavior is concerned with anomalous sexual practice, it is more closely resembles similar sexual perversions.
Now, do we have words like pedophilophobia, or incestphobia? Certainly not. Why? because nobody is afraid of incest, pedophilia or homosexuality. Then why we have word ‘homophobia’ circulating (on Mariam-Webster they attribute creation date for this term in 1960s. No surprise, if you consider Kinsey, and similar activists of the time who coined it)? Well, the only reasonable answer is that it is not a word describing something in the real world, but rather a politically motivated term coined to present opponents of homosexuality in negative light.
If ‘homophobia’ would be a word describing something in the real world, it would have analogous terms like incestphobia, etc.
But, again, everybody knows perfectly that there is no such thing as “irrational, intense and persistent” fear of homosexuals any more than there is such “irrational, intense and persistent” fear of incest, or pedophilia.
First of all, there is no fear. people simply repulsed.
Second, even IF there were fear, it would seem to be quite rational in the sense that there are many fears people have toward dangerous/destructive/otherwise sick behaviors.

So what we have is that there is no fear of homosexuals observed generally speaking, and even if it were to be shown that there is such fear, it would be pretty justified.
All this discussion leads only to one thing: “homophobia” is a politically motivated and coined term by homosexual activists with no real world substance, and is used for the only purpose to make those who oppose homosexual practice viewed negatively if (if not mentally deficient).

I think there’s a lot of good sense in the above post. (#8) It has some things I hadn’t thought as much about.

When I was reading it, I began to sense that there are subtle suggestions in the term “homophobia” that would try to lead one into thinking that communion with imoral behavior doesn’t lead to moral corruption, and that to think that it would or could, is only an unfounded fear which is not based upon any sure foundation of common sense or truth. Therefore, the suggestion is that it must be a “phobia” of some sort.

Such thinking is of course contrary to both good sense and God himself…and therefore not just God himself but also every thinking man of higher education or learning, as well as all people everywhere. (see Esther 1:16-18 as an example of this)

So it’s my hope that judges and men of renown will
be considering all people everywhere when they think and speak upon these matters, in order that they may be impartial in their judgment, knowing that an open sin is an open wrong against everyone.

The result of condoning sin is well suggested in Esther 1:18, which seems to me to have been written for our learning, for such a time as this.

Shari, I also use Logos software and find it very good, but I am certainly no expert. I also would like to know what Dr. Brown thinks, but unless he uses the software, I guess it will be difficult for him to comment.

I have a couple of quick questions. Since this show was on questions and answers I thought I would ask it here. God promised that there would always be one of David’s descendants on the thrown. For the Christian this dilemma is easy to answer as we see Christ as currently on the throne.

First question: During the 70 years of exile there was no Davidic king on the thrown. Does this mean the promise failed—or was the promise conditional?

Second question: What do Jewish people make of a 2000 year hiatus of no king?

If you read 2Ki 25:27–30 you will understand that God’s promise didn’t fail during the exile. Matthew also continues the Davidic line through the exile in Mt 1:12–16. Exiled Kings are still Kings.

Of course, Israel today is not a Kingdom, but the common Orthodox belief is that the Messiah will be of the line of David and he will restore the kingdom when he comes. There are Jews who claim to be of the Davidic line who meet up in Jerusalem each year.

Also just as brother Michael showed in Matt. 1 showed the Davidic rule passing on through the individuals this can also be seen in Luke 3.

Also one of the things about David’s descendants always being on the throne we need to remember that sometimes it is shown to be a conditional thing, meaning that when and if one was not on the throne, that it would happen again, so in other words David would always have one on the throne in that way.

Then there is the understanding that Messiah is the One that is always from David, and rules on the throne at all times. Now to show you again that there will be another on the throne of David(a Davidic King) consider that one of the two witnesses in Rev. is said to be from the tribe of Judah, He is called, “Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel”.